Ideals of consistency and coherence, I think, are unkind.

Why unkind? Well, if I try to use myself in ways I'm not made to be used, it's first and foremost painful. It also doesn't help me make either the discoveries that interest me most or my richest work. I just don't think we function with the greatest happiness or most interestingly when we see ourselves as creatures with single, meaningful centers, deep inside. That Romantic model is a mean old one, I think. We can do better.

Since I don't believe I am -- or anyone is -- "one thing," I approach creating things (visual art, fiction, non-fiction) not as "expression" from any kind of "true inside." I make images by playing with an evolving set of skills and tactics aimed at stumbling into surprising thoughts and juxtapositions and developing them much farther than is possible "in my head."

Making art is an abundantly supplied, humor-filled laboratory of quirks, lucky blunders and unexpected experiments. A laboratory for exploring perceptual, philosophical, and psychological multiplicities in ourselves and in the works we end up creating -- the artifacts of our actions. It's a lab for cultivating a sense of what range of diversity can coexist, with what consequences. For growing compositions that gently question traditional boundaries of coherence.

I write about this; it informs things I make; it's how I try to teach writing and creativity. It's in this spirit, too, that I present pictures in a variety of media and styles.