In my artistic journey, the conceptual and artistic approach had a great dimension, the intention, the approach was very strong, sometimes leaving me frustrated not to use my sensitive capacities to express myself plastically. My sensitivity was solicited to feel the world that I translated into an intention. This sensitive decryption also oriented me towards a desire for beauty, which questioned me, because I have integrated the history of contemporary art and the latter at the dawn of our era has built beauty as a reactionary approach, only the poetic still has a little right to exist. What happened to me? Around me, many crises are evoked, was I looking for a little comfort through the beauty that man is sometimes capable of creating? Was it a reason for reassurance?

What has happened to us in contemporary art? Artists are very concerned with societal issues, particularly climate change and our colonial past. It is important to study these issues, but a great upheaval is taking place. Where once only politicians, intellectuals, and artists had a mediated voice, everyone can now find an echo for their words through social networks. Thus, denunciations that are useful to the point of saturating our media spaces become at the same time new morals, commonplaces, and sometimes ideologies bordering on intolerance. Artists are dispossessed of what made their strength, the sharing of a thought about the world.

Thus, with more or less depth, artists are destined to denounce what a large part of society also denounces, they become instruments of redundancy, crossing the same subjects, through a speech that has become conformist. Why beauty then? Is it capable of getting us out of this conformism and what would it have to bring? At first it was intuitive but I had this intuition that art could regain its legitimacy by rebalancing the political discourse with an aesthetic dimension in the cosmetic sense of the term. Rebalancing our rigid society through heterogeneous claims by also proposing possibilities of common reconciliations that would pass through aesthetics, in a common comfort.

At first, I saw answers to these concerns in design without understanding the ins and outs and wanted to create installations with furniture. I was looking for clues to better understand our present and through digressions I came to ask myself questions about the history of a political party that I felt close to but which in its evolution seemed to me to be frozen and which would be an epiphenomenon of what I am trying to grasp. I then came across a philosopher's book on the history of this party that dealt with questions that I thought would give me answers. I bought the book, after a few pages I realized that it was very technical and that it was not going to lead to a denouement or towards a creative reflection, I knew I was lost.

While I was at a friend's birthday party, Claire Parnet came up to me and asked what I was working on. I told her about my confusion and said that I intuitively had an attraction to furniture and that I was wondering how to encounter beauty without being reactionary. She replied that this was the project of the Memphis designers and that I should look into it.

I was surprised. I was familiar with this movement, especially since it had returned to the forefront in recent years, but I had envisioned it in such a playful way that I had never considered it as being based on a theoretical foundation. I inquired about the theorist Andrea Branzi and was intrigued by his book, What is Design? I thought that I could understand my interest in design through it. In the introduction, there were all the elements of answers but I will write about this later because I have to prepare my participation in a trade show... To be continued...