In my work, process has always been about learning the tools to make art. By tools, I mean the skills to work the materials and the way to achieve certain visual goals. A lot of artists get waylaid by process because it's easy to get caught up in its complexities. In ceramics the complex glaze formulations or the temperature that a piece needs to be fired to achieve a certain finish. Art-making is a vulnerable process and artists often focus on the less frightening discussions of
how to make art rather than actually
making art.
The other pitfall artists fall into is one that an art educations often creates. It's the insecurity that one's art might be labeled as being insubstantial or meaningless. Art teachers are always asking, "what was your intent?" However, this question is only valid in the context where it shows what you were trying to do, and if you actually tried hard enough to achieve it. It's more of an exercise in trying to elucidate just how much work you did to get there, not whether your work has artistic merit (though that's entirely subjective as well).
I've encountered art without rational or articulate intent that was explosively brilliant. What I mean by that is, when you ask the artist what they were thinking, what their rationale was when they were making the piece, you can't get a definite answer from them. And, even if you did, you might realize that the explorations and decisions they made as they were making the art was not driven by a conscious, linear thought process but a reactive one. Sometimes, you discover that they were simply seduced by forms and color. Intent doesn't have to be mind-blowing. Simple ideas are often profound.
Forms that captivate me are sensuous, voluptuous, erotic and express tensions - between curves and hard edges. Holes, divisions, intersections. I like objects that could be several different things at the same time - that ambiguous line between; the liminal space. I'm fascinated by the temporal aspect of objects in that each represents a snapshot of a moment in time. I often do work in triptychs to exemplify an idea or to capture a time range.
A caveat to intent is that - if too belaboured - becomes a restraint. In my process, often a form exploration starts off as a sketch. Sometimes I'll wake up in the morning and a shape pops into my head. I sleepily put it down. And, eventually, begin to explore what it might look like from all sides. But, when I actually start working on the idea in clay, the form evolves on it's own. It changes and begins to define itself - often quite differently from where it started from. Intent is subject to intuition.
I'm not a political artist or someone trying to express the pain in the world. I don't want someone to "place" me within the continuum of artmaking as a "post modern" artist. Meaning for me, has more to do with how people respond - viscerally - to my pieces and whether my ideas - however simple they are - find resolution and connection.