Representations of the past are the backdrop against which our practices and beliefs become visible and acquire meaning. This relationship is not one of simple causality; the dialogue between image and history is filled with complexity. Embedded within what would be called an affective study of historicity, my practice is primarily concerned with historical images in terms of intensity, distribution, and virtuality. These concerns call for new methodologies of exploration and experimentation. .

There are no representations, only images. Images can function as representations only if they are made to correspond with content. While it may increase a set of specific possibilities, representation is foremost a subtraction of the image’s potential from the world. Images and reality are fully entangled, neither preceding the other. We can call this zone of entanglement the simulacra. Simulation can reinforce normative models of thought by presenting images as either the natural order of resemblance or a copy that degrades reality. However, I am interested in moving outside the oppositional binary of the real and the copy in order to redistribute the agents involved in the production and consumption of images so that new forms of engaging the world emerge.

There is no past, only histories. Histories (for they are always multiple) can function as the past only when we neglect the complexities of their emergence and forget the ways in which they inflects the present and future. The investigation of the sites of arrest, where signification has become stratified and territorialized, is central to my practice. I approach the histories of an event, not as an extensive and empirical archive of facts, or for that matter, as something that exists only in the past, but rather as a dynamic mediator that is always already shaping our being in the world.