Man and Nature?
The idea of living in harmony with nature is a widely exhibited notion, and equally widely ridiculed and often dismissed as a romanticized, starry-eyed and silly one. And it does indeed appear silly when it becomes a construct, and turns into an escape from reality, and a renunciation of responsibility, which it admittedly does pretty easily. But still, to dismiss the notion of the longing for reconciliation with nature as altogether escapist would be absurd. In myself I take it as an indication toward some very essential contradictions in my mind and my worldview, and then I go from there, searching for the truth. Which is of course just as silly as any other absolutism. Can’t seem to help myself though. I’m just as psychotic as the society I’m part of, and THAT is where “nature” becomes relevant and to me CRUCIALLY IMPORTANT. The forest and the mountains and the lakes and the oceans are sane, and when I’m there I become more so too.

That’s the attraction of nature, it’s anti-psychotic effect. This aspect is essential to my relation with it. My brain constantly creates all kinds of wanted and unwanted barriers between me and my environment, and I collect endless quantities of stimuli. Interpreting these stimuli and responding more or less adequately to them requires the making of innumerable connections and a lot of reasoning. The effects of the abstract notions I produce can be very forceful. Sometimes I have to struggle against getting carried away by particular sets of purposes and ambitions and by my self-consciousness. This gets more intense when I live in busy places with massive stimuli. In social networks, there´s interaction in order to establish a certain dynamic relationship beween people and their social environment. In nature, it’s different. My reasoning, my concepts, my arguments are not answered. The quiet of nature doesn’t have to do with sound or movement, but with the lack of mind-noise. When I’m in the presence of this presence long enough I become more like it, I become more present. I become increasingly able to distinguish myself out from the homogeneous mass of everything else, and identify myself as something defined and entitled to a perspective on everything external to me. I am that, that is me, but still I can differentiate."

What is your work process like?
My methodological structure is dialectic and loopy, entailing a continuous questioning, invalidation and re-evaluation, both on the concrete, personal and meta-physical level. Its prerequisite assumption is that the concrete (the works
I make), my mental/emotional state (the personal) and my world-view (the meta-physical) are inseparable, which is to say that if one is stuck, the two others can’t move forward. So if the goal is to develop my work, the personal and the meta-physical fields need to have equal attention.
“One of the projects that comes out of my research at the master and the one I am graduating with is an installation of performance films. In this work I aim to depict primarily my own paradoxical relation to society, nature, God, and myself which is full of absurdity, contradictions, determination, nonsensicality, sensitivity, seriousness, misunderstandings, ambition, doubt, beauty and desperation. And revelations, illusions, trust, suspicion, attempts, disappointments, faith, love, hope, damage, repair, judgement, devotion, self-absorption, objectification, emancipation, alienation, emotion, abstraction, denial, confrontation, compassion. And so on. In an endless loopy relay. This naive seriousness, the determination and conviction with which we perform the most absurd acts every day, it horrifies me and at the same time it can be so incredibly wonderful and touching. That’s what we do isn’t it, it’s a miracle that we still exist. I suppose we are easy to love. Thank God we don’t know what we’re doing”.