My recent work uses map imagery to ask questions of a landscape rather than to define or explain it. I'm interested in the visual play between scientific representation and artistic abstraction, between mapped and omitted information.

Paintings betray their own making, but maps are transparent - they present their subject, rather than their authorship. We're aware of the painter's license to adjust the world to suit the painting, but we generally accept a map as an objective and accurate landscape. I keep my own hand obvious in my work - my maps are clearly authored, presenting subjective knowledge.

The cartographer edits, omits, and abstracts information about the place he depicts; what isn't stated can tell us more than what is. I leave labels and information out of my images. I want the viewer to question why the map is here, who made it, and what experience - if any - is being presented (the 'place' may be only a collection of abstract shapes, after all). I am headed into that space without labels, a place I do not know but nonetheless describe.