Once an artwork is made available to the public it is open to interpretation which sometimes can vary hugely from the original intention/s. Some works of art are so obscure and impenetrable that they become elitist. Art should surely engage in order to communicate and in turn to provoke communication about the work and/or the questions that it raises.

By undermining a well-known genre of art, this work sets out to ask questions about the viewers’ preconceived ideas of art – about what they are seeing and their interpretation of it. It asks: just because something is presented in a familiar art setting, is it art? There is a subversion here too which comes from a personal need to challenge preconceptions and ask questions of the viewer through mischief and humour.

The construction of some of the objects is influenced by subversive elements of Dada and Marcel Duchamp, in particular, who used his constructions/sculptures to ask questions of the staleness of the art world in the beginning of the 20th century. Here, recognisable objects and tools are changed – they are either rendered useless or they are presented to show themselves as something different. But the objects are actually nonsense, presented in the almost universally recognisable style of 17th century Dutch still lifes or Vanitas paintings, referencing and playfully subverting some of the symbols that are associated with the genre.

With the viewer being made aware that they are being presented with elements of nonsense and, is there any point in them analysing the work and placing a sense of artistic merit to it?  Perhaps they will interpret what they will… and perhaps more than what is necessary. Of course there is also the possibility of just smiling.