In 2018 I went to New Zealand along with my girlfriend and two friends. The were doing an internship, so I was alone from 9 to 17 every day. I spent every day painting and exploring the area around us.  It was one of the most rewarding experiences of my life, and since then it has been clear to me that art is the only real way I can digest and explain my own experiences. I am not able to put into words what the value of my life is without cliches or cultural norms of language. This text is evidence of that I guess.

My depression kicked in for real after this trip and it has taken me up until now to find my way back. I was suddenly struck by the sensation of “emotion” and found myself in awe of my surroundings. It was an intense and overwhelming experience. About a month or two later I wrote this in my notebook:
The shock of feeling is passing. I believe I am now entering stability. What remains is the only logical and realistic truth - that extreme happiness and the physical rush of emotion requires an active approach. It is not a sustainable situation to experience life through purely overwhelming sensations. An active choice to go be present and open to feeling allows for the contrast necessary to fulfil the need of connection to my surroundings.
Finally the only viable conclusion is that life must be lived, reflection is dependent on action, presence is a result of both, and art is the culmination of all.

It’s still a rollercoaster for me in terms of finding a calm way of approaching the intensity of the world, but it seems to stabilize over time. One thing is clear though; that through all this searching the only aspects of my life that remained invaluable was observation and art. 

Why are artefacts in photography always avoided? Editing of photos is a product of the digital revolution, and digital photography only exists digitally. Why is there an unspoken agenda to achieve something naturalistic when the photo in reality is simply a bunch of pixels next to one another. Why do we want the image to only reflect what we saw, and not the photo itself? Modern painting has very little ambition in terms of realism because we have grown past having an interest in a painting that looks like a photograph. But then why have we not outgrown a photograph looking like a photograph? Artefacts and artificial additions to the photograph are evidence of a creator, and should be viewed as such. We have become so
used to photography representing an experience that an

unrealistic depiction is alienating to observe. For some reason though,  a social media profile displaying a perfect life is perceived as realism, despite the fact that the process of taking it is completely designed, and the selection of one among hundreds of snapped photos is aiming to be the most unbelievable and amazing example. Even the influencers are open about it not being a true representation-- but still it is more appealing due to the life it allows us to fantasise about. What has made pixels so incongruent with experience? Why do “out-of-focus” 1 hour exposures of the past not have the same disability? In any case-- there will be plenty of artefacts on this website, and I will strive to produce something that is true in expression more so than in representation.

I made this new website as an alternative to social media, enabling me to purely consider my own ambitions and drive -- and not instant gratification or external factors. Hopefully I can create a space -- both for myself and for whoever is interested; to appreciate the smaller moments and the joy of craft as well as everyday reflections and observations.