Artist Statement
If the shifting nature of a "designed" object positions the artist, designer, engineer, scientist, and architect into each other's distinguished fields, then these boundaries which define and separate these practices can, at once, collaboratively and perhaps, competitively be questioned or crossed together.
It is clear for me that Art is a design problem.

Perhaps Rosalind Krauss' diagram in “Sculpture in the Expanded Field” (October Vol. 8, Pg 37) requires an additional plane, in another dimension, off the flat page, and into its proposed field, that exemplifies the one doing the producing: Designer as Artist, Artist as Architect, Architect as Designer, Engineer as Artist and so on. From this we would have something more like, “Sculpture in the Expanded Professional Field”. What I am trying to say here is not just a question of the semantics of identification, rather I feel that there is something exciting and radical about the idea that something could “become” Art. Someone, anyone, could see something that was not intended to be Art, but it was made Art by that person. This differs from being “presented” art in places that are familiar to art viewers and, as Rosalind explains, in new and “expanded” locations like landscapes, lobbies, alleyways, airports, bus stops, tv, radio, etc. This actually makes things more complicated in some regard. It is true, we can go almost anywhere these days to see “art”. Artists have moved into many new locations to present art. My question is: Is Art really expanding if it is only an additional amenity or re contextualization to a space? I turn to another artist, Francis Picabia, who said something that has always stuck with me. He said, “If a man’s work translates my dream, then his work is mine.”