I would like my art not to require too much in the way of explanations in order to work, and these two ideological references let me develop this idea. A work of art for me is an autonomous entity that transmits or communicates emotions, information, knowledge, etc. I have nothing against a discourse added a posteriori, but the artistic goal should work by itself in the first encounter with the viewer.

I don’t think that all art should be understood. My own posture with art, both in creating it and contemplating it, does not involve any mental attitudes that search for the documentary, informative, logical or investigative. Precisely what interests me is what cannot or does not need to be explained or understood as a whole. I find this very attractive because it gives rise to curiosity and questions with no clear answers in whoever is contemplating it and does not exclude people from a reflective process.

I always try to keep the mystery and create states of confusion and uncertainty. These sensations are very real to me, because life constantly places you in states of uncertainty. Of course, my taste for the dark, grotesque and harsh means I find a certain pleasure in these states of confusion and uncertainty that I try to create. My paintings are stagings of a somewhat Baroque composition, scenarios in which the characters are involved in a story. There is a narrative, but it is incomplete. They are fragments of a story in which I don’t know exactly what is happening, and I don’t want to know either. I wish to remain in that state of confusion and bewilderment that contemplating a mysterious scene leaves you in. But it shouldn’t be absolutely meaningless, that’s not what I am interested in. I think that there are sufficient elements to construct possible narrations, depending on the way everyone looks at it. The viewer thus takes part in the game of trying to read, understand and uncover the meaning.