JAPANESE   |    ENGLISH

*The text on the English page is a bit old.

The latest text is on the Japanese page.

"About Expression in General"

The Common topic in my works can be expressed in the following way: “By connecting the boundaries to overcome it I create the totality with seemingly unstable movement which results in fused and stable relationship.” It seems contradictory, but I think both are actually established in things and constitute its essence. For example, the expression “to connect the boundaries” can be changed to “to lose the boundaries” and is essentially the same. Also, we can think that there are actually no boundaries, but we miss the connection as a result of separation for easier understanding. To use one more example,when we cut a vegetable in two halves there is “a lost part” adhered to the knife. The result of “the act of separation or conclusion” is the loss of a part . I have a strong interest in this lost part, which I perceive as a connection.

"About Layer-Structure"

There are a lot of different painting supports and methods of materials and textures in my works. Nevertheless, my research is not about the layer-structure of these elements.  The layer is “overlap of disconnections”, but what I am researching is the relationship that connects these disconnected overlaps and transcend them. To be specific, I think we can say that the substance of painting such as support or paint is “Real (entity that exists)”, while what is depicted (illusion, space) is “Imaginary (a virtual image, falsehood)”.  When the object of depiction, “Imaginary (a virtual image, falsehood)” is being painted it comes closer to the field of “Real (entity that exists)”. And viсe versa, when body (substance) of support or paint, “Real (entity that exists)”, by being painted accompany the illusion and spatiality, it approaches “Imaginary (a virtual image, falsehood)”. So, by approaching and crossing into each other’s fields they become one and relationship of a fusion is being born. 

"About The Side of Painting Support"

I think it is common to perceive support of a painting as a flat surface, but for me it is a body (object). The support is of cause a three-dimensional object with a definite thickness. It depends on the method of expression, but in my case, from long ago I was puzzled by the approach which ignores this thickness, the side of support, perceiving it as an addition to it’s flatness. In the first place, when canvas is stretched on the base, it is not separated on front and side, but constitutes the one. Besides, between front and side there is a curve, which changes with the angle difficult to define.

From which point does this fold become front, and from which point does it become side? That’s why I want to create the expression which includes the side of support.

The fold (edge) of the canvas is not a right angle. This raises the question of how much of the canvas should be considered "flat".

Nevertheless, just to stress the side would be to make the painting more material, but there are already a lot of various expressions like this existing. While bringing attention to the relationship between depicted objects or spaces, “Imaginary (a virtual image,falsehood)”, and its connection with the boundaries, I am trying to create the relationship which overcome the boundaries between side and front.

Also, while including the side of the canvas in the content of the work, the work is perceived not only from its front side, but the change of the angle of perception is also appears as an element. We move in the exhibition space to see the work and the angle of perception of the work changes with it. Also, when we see it on display of TV or smart phone the work is not necessarily seen from its front side.  It is rather natural that the point of view is changing, the angle is changing. In case of my expressions, it is something that can’t be ignored.

“About the Separation of Supports and Gap”

Recently I am using the support which is assembled from several parts.I was pushed to this method during my participation in “VOCA” Exhibition in 2014 in Ueno Mori Art Museum, where "it was necessary to separate the work in two parts in case it is of the large size".

 When I separated the support, I was puzzled by the absence of necessity in the gap between the parts of the canvas. Then, I arrived to the following idea: “if the canvas is divided, I can use different type of materials for the parts of the canvas and connect and fuse them while the link between them is originally completely broken”. When I was using one support, it was stable, and it was necessary to create the separation in the plane of the canvas to be able to create the link in the end. Also, I was partly showing the shadow between supports as an outline, emphasising spatiality by depicting shadows or altering the relationship at the point of change of the plane (the line of bending). Recently, I started to separate supports in 4 parts, increasing the types of materials and actively engaging the shadow of a gap. At first, I started it as an experiment but now continue with awareness based on rather sharp understanding.  

“About fabric (the elements of support)”

Also, starting from year 2009 I paint in the way the parts of the canvases stay visible. For preservation purposes I take the minimal necessary measures but try to leave the fabric itself visible. I heard the reaction abroad “in the negative sense, canvas is left, nothing is painted”, but I think this is similar to the notion of “0 (zero)”. It is similar to the difference of perceiving “0” as “absence” or accepting “0” as “presence of nothing”? Or it can be changed in the following opposition: “the blank space remained, or it is said to be the blank space, but it didn’t remain, it was actually left (or to bring it closer to my expression, “I insist on support”)”. By painting while leaving the fabric of the canvas untouched, at first glance there is a harmony as in a collage, but also resisting each other relationships are being born. Besides, by applying on fabric of one support the colour of the fabric of another support, I show it as connected, but in the same time mixing “Real (entity that exists)” with “Imaginary (a virtual image, falsehood)” and crossing back and forth the boundaries between them. To emphasise the difference between the substances, I created the series where metal and wood are also used as a part of the support. 

“About Roentgenpainting Series and works other than paintings”

Besides painting, I also create sculptural objects and installations. The common feature is an attempt to reveal the painterly expression through other media. 

The starting point for “Roentgenpainting” series is “what if we see painting, as well as its process, from 360° (here “360°” is the opportunity to see the work from all the angles, but also signifies the process of seeing as a running of time). The specialty of painting presents space and objects that don’t exist: “it lies”, so basically everything goes. Nevertheless, it is not so easy in case of a sculptural object.

The front of Roentgenpainting shows the eventual completed state of the front of the painting, while sides show the process. Since the resin is poured layer by layer, the actual process can be perceived from the side. Objects are created with this analytical point of view. If objects are painterly expressions perceived from material point of view, installations are spatial expressions. Body exists in space. Of cause it is the same for painting. The relationship  installation can create between space and painterly expression I research with the help of thread and line.