In my artwork I explore various definitions of nature and natural history, how these have functioned over time, and the disparity that can exist between them. In doing so, I aim to create an individual vision of nature that scrutinizes these various meanings. Today the scientific pursuit of natural history seems to be an outmoded practice, one that has been divided between the hard sciences and culture (fine art and museums, the Discovery Channel, ecotourism, etc). The tension that arises from conflating incongruous notions of nature—a mechanistic as well as a romantic, idealized concept—is a guiding principle for my artistic project. I agree with Robert Smithson’s appraisal of the Romanticist concept of nature as “simply another 18th-19th century fiction”; however, I am simultaneously sympathetic to the transcendentalism of Henry David Thoreau and other naturalist poets. I construct a personal, handmade natural history. This involves assuming a naturalist's stance and acting as a natural historian myself, although scientific fact is presented from a naïve perspective that distorts the scientific method. The works of artists such as John James Audubon, Robert Smithson, Cornelia Hesse-Honeggar, and Mark Dion have impacted the way that I work as an artist. Another chief inspiration comes from spending time in nature. Collecting specimens plays an important role in my artistic practice since an isolated object necessarily becomes tempered and re-contextualized. In the studio I am able to exert complete control over these objects, much like a scientist functions in a laboratory. Objects are drawn, photographed, magnified, preserved, catalogued, and otherwise manipulated. The studio allows me to draw natural objects divorced from nature; removed from the original context, the categorization of these objects as ‘natural’ becomes distorted. (2010)

BACK