The idea of landscape could be considered more as a structural reference, and also somewhat rhetorical, to a format, rather than an adherence to a specific genre or model of representation. Consequently, it is feasible to consider a hypothesis in the practice of a landscape of signs, which behave according to a more arbitrary and less directional interrelation than what would be exhibited in a more conventional landscape. At the same time, these records impose an echo, an allusion, to geographical accidents, terrain alterations, depths, peaks, valleys, surface escapes in perspective, hollows, undulations, and splashes, volatile or earthy atmospheres, all of which aim to propose a grammatical system based on the graphic and the gestural.

On a set of canvases and papers of various sizes, an anxious counterpoint of weavings, smudges, strokes, spills, transparencies, superimpositions, textures, marks, traces, remains, and splashes develops. It is the agitated domain of a terminology as addicted to reconciliations as to opposites, where it offers the fragile reading a territory of appearances that act as if they assumed a vocally nominative direction, but only pretend to do so. In a disharmony of factors as physical and tactile as artificial and elusive, feigned adhesions to the skeletal remains of the reference provide tiny flashes of certainty. They are mirages in a world of visual objects that only resemble themselves, while pretending to mirror their likeness with the infinite things stored in the bazaar of the nonexistent.

Perhaps, these simulacra without a model “represent what they are not” and move forward solely from similarities, in the necessary derivations to extract from the genre barely what requires its “false appearances” attire. And the gaze has no choice but to be complicit in this polarity, where the tacit extremes survive the dilemmas of form and meaning, image and idea, matter and archetype.