The "dig" and the mural are two projects that are entirely in opposition but with the same end in mind. Each is a kinetic call and response object. One calls to the environment, in particular to a segment of its inhabitants in a very conventional manner using the vernacular perceived by the signs and conditions encountered, while the other is in effect to communicate through entirely non-verbal means. The mural works within an an established set of grammatical rules and social etiquette.I initially intended to "work with" the existing art and writing on the space, but soon discovered that my voice was to big , active and dominant. What ensued was a stretching out and staking my claim which is entirely within the protocol of hip hop/graffiti culture. It is an open cultural critique with persistence and staying power to criticism as a measure of strength. It is this aspect the the project, the burying of the ego which is most intriguing. The operation of bombing an area with a personal sign is one of free expression ensconced self-promotion. The writers ego is only as large as the geographical range, boldness and available supplies. This preoccupation with space is at the heart of this project.I have established my geo-political map and have entered the space with the intent to appropriate, occupy,redistribute and redesign the area to a preconceived vision as to how this specific area should be managed. As a common space, claim to use is open to interpretation.I entered the area as an objective observer. I let the space speak to me as much as any painter would look at a blank canvas. My initial marks were intimate, innocuous, the propping of a fallen branch on a tree trunk. Soon I was taken broken branches and making a series of gates and fences. These pieces were so quietly integrated into the landscape that they slipped detection by most people, though is was interesting that people did seem to naturally conform to these delicate barriers. As soon as I started to enter objects alien to the environment was when a dialogue began to develop between an unknown individual or group of individuals. The first encountered occurred immediately after installing the "beast" (see earlier post). Within a week of its installation it was viciously attacked, turned on its side with a chunk of concrete that it was anchored to slammed into the body. On three subsequent attacks the legs were broken and once the rope that attached to the concrete anchor had been cut with a knife. Each attack I returned the creature to its original position. It was here that I recognized that the pieces were doing something far more than could ever do in the sterile environment of a gallery. They were provoking a real conversation that was far more profound than any academic discourse. There was something raw and dangerous about what was happening. The mystery is intoxicating. It fuels curiosity. The conversation between artist and audience is real and unrestrained. I had confined myself to a very select area, but after these encounters I began to expand my explorations to other pockets of the park, provoked by animosity at the thought that someone was fencing me out. In other words, "they" had provoked a turf war. My inspections and observations made it evident who my audience was and I secured possible sites hat might engaged the highest percentage of contact. The first site chosen was a 25'-30x 100' concrete foundational slab that has been the canvas of areas taggers. The second site was a shielded blind in a clump of brush and under the umbrella of a group of pepper trees. This site is primarily used as a pot smoking beer drinking natural lounge for locals noted by the spray painted tags on discarded concrete piers and trees that act as seats, resembling an native American meeting area.

This project is about an idea. Better said it is about the potential of an idea. In my estimation the shortcoming of traditional artmaking is that the idea is trapped within the work. It is only through externalization that the original idea can be remotely accessed. As Barthes suggests, a photographer can never be truly experienced by the viewer. The viewer is a latercommer to the experience, the primary experience. It is in the maker where the true depth of the photograph has any meaning. The aesthetic experience is a mono-experiential event. The further you are from the center of that sensation the more necessary is it for the viewer to manufacture a diluted and artifical response.

This work, the dig in particular, is an attempt to expose the inner workings of an art piece. The audience is subject to the generation of the work and there is the possibility to witness the act in progress, question the artist in the moment, and participate in what becomes a real dialogue. There is no dialogue in a gallery. A gallery is a mortuary where the body is presented on a cold slab.