The work that I make is in direct response to climate, with sensitivity as to how weather shapes environment, communities and culture. I'm concerned with the impact a changing climate has on isolated communities-and with how isolated communities impact climate and the ecosystem. Connected are the seasonal dialogues= intimate encounters with land and sea to mark places and changes in time. Hence the work is very much about the wanders- engaging via site-responsive drawing, painting, ephemeral landworks, community collaborations and interventions.
Altars and alter-ability in the land also inform my practice. After spending time at residencies in Ireland and Shetland, I am more and more interested in the human connection with place, and how we are all compelled to alter the land in some way, shape or form-even in remote, sparsely populated regions of the world. I am driven to leave my own land marks in these places and find myself making portals from dead vines and branches, arranging red sumac in spirals on blue snow shadows and lining up rows of milkweed pods into migration patterns. Remnants found on remote shorelines (seaweed, lichened stones, ice,) and fallow fields (carcass, nests, wild growth) are intimately altered and left as transitory offerings to wind, field, forest and tide.
Although my own makings are ephemeral, this re-forming of nature leads me to question: what right have I to alter nature? Am I any different then a developer who alters the land on a much larger scale? What are the boundaries between what is considered to be permanent outdoor art - where the land is also altered - and altered land for 'development' ?
back to top