“Why? Cuz I got to make it and destroy it and it still existed!” At what point do you considered yourself to have “destroyed” this piece, and how for you does it still exist?

“I see the feebleness in any gesture, when it’s really built for the duration of a show, or simply for documentation, or as an (ugh) example.” What is it for you exactly that is “feeble” in what others might describe as a fleeting?

Your work, like your rant have a slow and interesting build up to their narratives, they function in a way that exposes those manic qualities you spoke of earlier. It gives them all a wonderful tension that is contagious for the viewer and at times leaves the reality around you and the work in eminent danger of collapse. Then you find a way out, “that I really don’t know what I’m talking about”, the tension fades and we are left holding the bag wondering who is responsible for what just happened. So I ask who is responsible and why? Is this fleeting or feeble?

What qualifies the nostalgia you speak of as misplaced? What does masks, fake old or truly old, have to do with post-colonialism and are you sure its nostalgia at work in peoples desire for these masks?

A lot of this rant is a cautionary tale to myself, trying to negotiate the space between a symbolic part of life that’s lived, and a symbolic act that’s acted, and how the objects involved in that part of life can matter after the fact.

I’d think the Albatross would look great wedged into a tiny white-walled gallery on the west-coast, but I’d want to push it there. Or at least keep trying, accept all kinds of help along the way, but make the story true.

albatross? seems to be exactly that- did you really think you would drag it all the way to the ocean, or in the back of your mind did you know how it was going to turn out, with the albatross house in a museum?