Red - Blue - Yellow Works Text	primary
and sometimes black white and grey	neutral
rarely green, orange or purple	secondary
but definitely never brown	tertiary
and then there's extreme contrast	complementary

The principle motivation behind this body of work is to present a problematical situation corresponding directly to one's cognition of reality, and reality's often relative perception.
More concretely, the ontological basis of these works Is one which is largely inspired by the aesthetics and works of the Supremacists, the Constructivists, the De StijI and the Neo-Plasticist movements in art.
By taking the above aesthetics, as well as my own existential experiences and then by reassembling them through a process of fragmentation, a new personal aesthetic vocabulary is created. This new language serves not only as a reflection of my own experiences with being handicapped, but also as a polemic to the aforementioned movements in art. Let me explain: it is my opinion that the previously stated art movements, in their development of the 'pure form' attempted to take these 'pure forms' and 'apply' them to general design and architecture resulting in some rather peculiar outcomes. For example, if you have ever sat in Rietveld's Red - Blue Chair, you would know that it can be very awkward and uncomfortable to sit in for long duration's. Consider the results of some Constructivist's architecture which has led to the current formation of prefabricated steel buildings, which dot the industrial parks of most cities. These buildings, which can be ordered in any colour or size from a catalogue, have neglected to consider the beings who inhabit them, making them somewhat uninhabitable in their consideration of 'pure form'. What started out as 'beauty' has turned to the 'beastly' techno-slums of our current age.
I would like to emphasize that the above applications do not necessarily disturb or anger me! Rather, I have come to see them in the context of 'pure forms'. The Red-Blue Chair is not really for sitting 'in': it is for seeing, filling negative space like sculpture, photographing, etc.; and likewise the Constructivist buildings are mammoth sculptures. I therefore conclude that these movements "sometimes" (not always) took 'pure forms' and disguised them as 'applied forms'. In other words: they took art and introduced it as practical design even though it was still art. You could then go forward and ask yourself, as the Dadaists did, "At what point does any common object become Art?" 
The root of my new work is based on this above conclusion. What I have done in my work is simply reversed the above process by taking 'applied forms' and, through a complex method of fragmentation and assimilation, created 'pure plastic forms'. For example, I have taken the practical (applied) form of a crutch and, reassembling its shape, changed it into the 'pure form' of a "plastic objet d'art". This process is then further applied as an assessment on the effects of the aforementioned aesthetic movements and influences, through art, into virtually all forms of contemporary design and architecture.
The work acts as both a vehicle to relate my personal artistic vocabulary (In dealing with my handicap) but also as a commentary on the effects of these already established influences on today's applied arts.