When object goes beyond what we already know, how do we interpret art? I have no interest in complexity, my approach de-mystifies art through the use of humour. Using object found or otherwise, or mundane things to create art is in my opinion, open to further scrutiny than any other medium, on the basis that it is merely appropriated. My interest lies solely in the idea that art and interpretation go hand in hand, my experience as an artist has led me to discover an interpretative language that exists in the art world and I question this language through humour and wordplay. Early in my undergraduate course I discovered that object was a way for me to personify my idea. The object is merely a vessel, the focus is mainly on the titles that I use as directives. With the idea of titles (text) being a directive, I have been working through the use of text creating short anecdotes that are pure gibberish, although a very simple idea, it helps enhance the delivery and reception of the work, in the gallery space an object becomes very planted to the plinth/floor, the text is on paper and is something that can be held and taken away. The paper i use is fairly expensive and has a nice texture, In turn the work becomes a product and creates a dilemma whereby the viewer begins to question what they want, the gibberish or the nice paper.