a synthetic statement about what I do

(Close)

The empty disc of the future enchants itself upon the same notes, sustained as backdrop by the mechanical and deaf rumble of destinations. Fruit of a solicitous calculus, the roundabout of opportunity crumples, dripping bramble and convex trellis over the flat forms of the weary landscape.

I am motivated to be amongst thinkers and artists in environments that valorize interdisciplinary approaches and practices. I want to watch someone work in a medium I do not yet know, to see what it makes available to them, what resistances it applies, what manipulation it refuses. That friction of proximity changes what you think is possible and recalibrates the edges of your own practice without requiring you to abandon it, which is the more interesting and more difficult thing. Community, understood this way, is not backdrop or social amenity, but becomes the structural condition of production of theory and practice.

There is also something harder to name, something about the particular texture of spaces where ambition and care are not yet fully separated. Most institutional environments gradually teach you that they are incompatible, that rigor requires a certain coldness, that seriousness means distance. This is a learned posture. What I look for, and what I build in my own practice, are sites where people remain genuinely accountable to one another's work: critical without performing critique as a form of dominance, experimental without the anxious theater that experimentation sometimes becomes when it needs to signal itself. Forward-thinking in a way that remains stubbornly human, unwilling to let the conceptual ambition sever its roots in lived and shared experience.

I identify within sites of critical analysis and reflection where I can engage with, deconstruct, and rethink infrastructures of power and their effects on the social tissue. The institutional shapes of knowledge are not neutral containers, because they select, compress, and exclude through the unseen violence of format and field. Research that arrives already knowing its conclusions has already made its most important political choice before writing a single sentence. It has chosen legibility over encounter, and in doing so has surrendered the thing that made the question worth asking at all in the first place.

It is particularly with(in) Others' multiplicities that my practice produces its most vivid effects, because it is there that the limits of any single framework become visible, pressured from outside by lives and logics the framework was not built to accommodate. This is not a romantic claim about alterity. It is a methodological one. Working at the edge of what your tools can do, in contact with what they were not designed to hold, is where the tools themselves begin to change shape. I am interested in that deformation, which is the moment a concept starts to fail and what it reveals in failing.

My priority is to work on communal projects in a fundamentally decentralized way, something close to a shared field of attention: problems held in common, and importantly processes that leave visible the traces of disagreement and revision rather than smoothing them into a final argument. My current theoretical and creative projects harvest community through common engagement with shared struggles and attempt to elevate decentralized perspective points, working against the tendency of even radical research to eventually center itself, to speak on behalf of rather than alongside.

Philosophy has been my primary theoretical environment for the past decade. The journey has involved a gradual shedding of what I can only call the Promethean hubris for total and encyclopedic knowledge, that desire to have already understood before encountering, to arrive at the object of inquiry already equipped with the correct apparatus. What replaced it is closer to a Deleuzian approach to sense-making: thought as a practice of variation and differánce and concepts understood as tools that wear down and transform through use. I hold that the shared reality of meaning is constantly negotiated in its historical embeddedness and therefore inhabited by struggles no methodology can simply bracket without falsifying itself. Meaning making is a diffused performance of theory and praxis, which is another way of saying that the separation between research and its object has always been a fiction, and a politically convenient one for those whose object of study does not push back.

This is where the limitations of traditional academic media become structural rather than incidental. The demand for a clearly stated question before work begins is not epistemically neutral. It forecloses the discoveries that only become possible in the middle of a process, when the material starts behaving unexpectedly and the original question turns out to have been wrongly posed. The format enforces a retrospective rationality onto what is lived as genuine uncertainty, producing documents that read as if the conclusion was always already there waiting to be uncovered. Knowledge locked behind paywalls and institutional affiliations has already made a political choice about who counts as a legitimate interlocutor. How research circulates is inseparable from what it claims.

Medium is not a vehicle. It is the site where thought becomes porous, where different things are made malleable in different ways, where a question that seems closed in one register opens unexpectedly in another. I work across sound, text, radio, moving image, and curatorial practice not out of a restless eclecticism but because each medium carries its own implicit theory of time, attention, and relation, and I am interested in what happens when those theories are brought into friction with one another. The answer to a research question is sometimes an essay. Sometimes it is a frequency. Sometimes it is the entire duration of a process that could not have been abbreviated without ceasing to be the thing it was.

I hold a sharply clear sense of direction. Not a destination, but an orientation: toward the communal, the decentralized, the formally restless, the politically accountable. Toward practices that do not require prior closure to begin, and do not mistake legibility for rigor.

A corner of the after retreats always before the awkward calculus of intentions;
of imposing remainders is the guilty instant composed. A blunt ferrule guides the centre,
attentive to what comes and what goes, minimal care for the feeble subsistence of the present.
Only in the disciplined rapture of an adjacent body does the perverse yoke of the continuum shatter, and the hour beats out its sixty, three-hundred-sixty atoms into a fait accompli of nothing.

© 2026