[ 日本語 ]
In contemporary art, perception and cognition have often been treated on the assumption of a standardized subject. Works are frequently read within institutional frameworks that presuppose homogeneous understanding and interpretation. When this assumption begins to falter, however, it is not only the forms of expression that are called into question, but also the very conditions under which production, presentation, and circulation are made possible.
Neurodiversity offers a perspective that understands differences in cognition not as deficiencies or deviations, but as multiple modes of structural organization. While this concept is often discussed within social or ethical contexts, it can also be reinterpreted as a methodology for reconsidering the conditions of artistic practice as a whole, including production, presentation, and circulation.
My practice does not aim to represent neurodiversity as a thematic subject. Rather, it is positioned as an inquiry into the conditions under which the act of making itself becomes possible. As someone directly involved, this is not a special aesthetic choice but a pragmatic attitude that allows me to continue working while responding to the frictions and difficulties that arise in everyday life.
Within my daily experience, states such as repetition, intense fixation, the reduction of available choices due to sensory sensitivity and sudden cognitive disruption, an expanded bodily awareness, and unintended hyperfocus are constantly present. These are not elements intentionally selected for the sake of expression. They are already embedded within the processes of living as adjustments and operations necessary to make production possible. The works emerge as the external manifestation of these “internal sketches” through the act of painting.
As a result, elements such as repetition, erasure, temporal disjunction, and traces appear in the works. However, these are not expressive techniques deliberately manipulated during production. Rather, structures of sensation and time that are already contained within daily life arise through short periods of work carried out in a state of hyperfocus. Following this process, strong physical fatigue often appears as a reaction. This cycle of bodily depletion and recovery is itself an unavoidable component of my practice.
This stance resonates in part with post-minimal and process-based art practices that have emphasized temporality, corporeality, and relationships with materials. However, my work does not repeat these historical frameworks. It differs in that cognitive and bodily differences are not referenced conceptually but are incorporated as foundational conditions that structure the practice itself.
For me, the act of making is only one part of a broader field of practice. Living space, production environments, and physical sites of presentation have been constructed through DIY methods rather than presupposing existing institutional frameworks. This choice does not aim to assert autonomy, but arises from bodily and sensory necessities: calm living conditions and proximity to natural environments are more conducive to sustained production. Dense urban art environments and physical art fairs are often perceived as closed spaces that make continuity of practice difficult. This difference in perception does not indicate superiority or inferiority, but functions as a prerequisite for mutual understanding.
DIY-based environmental construction serves as a form of conditional design that allows production and daily life to coexist, and the act of adjusting environments becomes an extension of making itself. At the same time, bodily practice has clear limits. Travel, prolonged stays, and face-to-face presentation formats often create friction with the conditions that support ongoing production.
For this reason, online presentation and circulation play a crucial role. The online space is not a substitute for physical presentation, but a circuit that extends bodily practice. It enables connection with others without excessively consuming the energy required for making, while surpassing physical constraints of distance, scale, and time.
As an extension of this condition-based practice, I have established and operated a gallery and residency space. There, I seek to engage not only artists working internationally, but also voices that tend to be positioned outside or prior to connection with urban and academic systems. Even expressions that exist before being named as “artists” are treated as practices that persist in their own right.
The aim of this initiative is not to replace existing systems of evaluation. Rather, it is to create conditions in which voices that are often marginalized by urban or institutional structures do not disappear, but are able to emerge and remain present. While this practice has been able to bring a sense of artistic circulation to a regional context, it is not directly connected to urban academic discourse. This distance should not be understood as a lack, but as a productive interval through which different temporalities and circuits of exchange can arise.
In this way, while the production of artworks remains central to my practice, it does not occupy a privileged position over other actions. Building a gallery, operating a residency, developing projects, and daily life itself are all placed on an equal plane. They are bound together as a sustained attitude toward maintaining a relationship with the world.
I have continually experienced friction with society simply by acting in ordinary ways. As a result, it has been necessary for me to remain connected to the world through every available means. This is not an abstract position, but an attitude essential for survival within society.
At the margins of materials that exist as disconnected signs within society, I continue to seek subtle relationships and fluctuations, and to desire their organic interconnection. I refer to this stance as “prayer.” It does not indicate religious belief or ritual. Rather, it names the act of continuously granting a different intensity of attention and time to secular materials and actions. This attitude of living itself is understood as a sacred artistic practice.
This practice does not speak about difference as representation. Instead, it treats cognitive, bodily, and environmental differences as conditions that actively function. Through this approach, it seeks to open circuits through which the voices of countless people who move toward expression while carrying inconvenience or misalignment can be extended and connected to others.
Note
This text was produced with the assistance of AI in order to articulate sensations and experiences derived from my own practice and to connect them to a professional and critical context.
For me, what might be considered ordinary life and artistic practice are difficult to describe using my own words alone, and only through the mediation of AI did they become articulable. This fact in itself indicates the depth of the gap between my experience and existing linguistic frameworks.
For a practical extension of this approach, see the gallery project linked below.
https://andecian.com