I have tried to interpret my work numerous times, and found different methods of such interpretation. I have referred to “Rhythm and relativism” as a definition of the semantic – visual structure of art in many of my earlier texts. In others (e.g. “pictures and… pictures”), I clashed various misunderstandings which result from the wrong interpretation of the notion ofa picture, and realized that the essence of my work is also the superimposition of many pictures on one another and relativization of their temporary meaning.

      However, if I were to say what’s most typical of the purely visual aspect of my works, what creates my style, I’d answer in three words – cracks, gaps and curtains. No matter when my pictures were created, one can always notice in them some aperture through which a piece of another picture shows, or a crack in the form or structure which, like a wound, destroys balance and causes anxiety. Almost always, my pictures also feature a kind of a semi-transparent curtain, which makes it impossible to see them clearly.

      Throughout the years, all these elements have been appearing spontaneously in my works, with no plan or agenda. It was relatively recently that I realized that they can be typical, visual determinants of my style. Where did this fascination with the visual side of deconstruction of the matter come from?

      To be brief, I believe that it is typical of any good art that it tries to re-define all schemes of seeing and understanding, by breaking every picture into the basic particles, so as to look for completely new, unexpected forms later. Maybe what I’ve written is a cliché in light of the latest philosophical trends and everyday practice, but doesn’t the media-focused civilization of our times try to smooth all its products, does it not try to remove all the cracks and gaps? Everything must be smooth and shiny – spotless. Also portraits of people must be ideal, “suitable for the media”, correct and beautiful – if there are any wrinkles or imperfections, they disappear under a thick layer of powder. Pictures must be clear and explicit, according to one of the simple definitions of the so-called “new objectivity”. It is a global trend for smoothing, simplifying, and idealizing (unification?). Unlike in nature, where everything is porous, cracked, not quite available or understandable – it is an expression of the timeless process of existence (this also applies to the essence of humanity). It seems that only artists, through their art, want to reveal this paradox of separation of our civilization from nature and man. Everybody does it his or her way – through the form and style. E.g. Gerhardt Richter paints pictures which look like blurred photos. He says: ‘If someone clearly sees a dead man, they won’t learn anything about him (or about the essence of death); more can be seen ina blurred photo, or a picture’. This brings one closer to the mystery of life and death.

                The cracks, gaps and curtains in my pictures are a form of deconstruction of the functional – definable ideal of the media, an ideal that simplifies and falsifies reality. They are also an attempt at integrating nature and man with the truth.